‘Letters: Bykofsky’s ideas skate on thin ICE’ via Philly.com

On Friday, July 18, 2014, Daily News Columnist Stu Bykofsky wrote an article entitled ‘Welcome, foreign felons.’ The following Letter to the Editor is in response to that article:

NO ONE should be held in jail for days on end because some federal agent wants to “run checks” on them to see whether it would be lawful to arrest them for something. In fact, the Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments to our Constitution prohibit that kind of tyrannical police-state behavior.

Yet, Stu Bykofsky, in his column “Welcome, foreign felons,” takes Mayor Nutter to task for upholding this basic American principle. The city has a policy, in place since mid-April, of refusing to honor non-binding “detainer” requests lodged by federal immigration authorities on prisoners in city jails whom our criminal justice system has determined should be released. In the court case – won by the ACLU – that determined that these ICE “detainers” are legally unenforceable, the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, born in New Jersey, whom Allentown police wrongly suspected of being an undocumented noncitizen. As a result, he spent over three extra days in jail, despite having already made bail, while ICE got around to figuring out the police were wrong. (As it turned out, he was mistakenly in jail in the first place; when his trial came up, he was acquitted of the charge for which he had been arrested.)

Philadelphia’s policy avoids travesties like that one (and the resulting liability) by refusing to keep people in jail at the mere request of ICE. Under the policy the city, quite properly, will hold someone for pickup by ICE only if the feds have gotten a warrant for their deportation or arrest.

Instead of engaging in baseless fear-mongering, Bykofsky should be praising the city administration for standing up for everyone’s equal civil rights. A country where any low-level government official can tell the police to jail you for days on mere suspicion, or for “investigation,” is not the country described in the Constitution of the United States.

Peter Goldberger
President
ACLU of Greater Philadelphia

Reggie Shuford
Executive Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania

Read the original article, including a letter from Everett Gillison, Chief of Staff/Deputy Mayor of Philadelphia, at Philly.com

You’re on The Grid. And so is your government.

By Andy Hoover, Legislative Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Map

State laws on privacy – June 2014 (click to enlarge)

When talk around here turns toward privacy in our use of electronic technologies and everyday activities, my mind goes straight to the Jason Bourne movie franchise and its characters’ references to popping on and off “the grid.” Although the Bourne series is fiction, it’s not a stretch to think of today’s electronic technologies as “the grid,” even for those of us who aren’t trained CIA assassins. And we shouldn’t have to escape to a beachside hut in India to escape the government’s probing eyes.

At the end of June, the ACLU released an interactive map that illustrates how well states are keeping up with protecting the people’s privacy in an age of evolving technologies. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania isn’t.

The ACLU examined state law on four key topics- government access to mobile location data, electronic communication data, and license plate reader data, and government use of drones. Utah, Tennessee, and Maine protect their residents’ privacy in at least three of those areas. Seven more states protect privacy in at least two of those issue areas. Pennsylvania, meanwhile, has no protections in state law on any of these topics.

Here in the commonwealth, we’ve been too busy fighting off new legislative initiatives for the government to expand its collection of your personal data to think much about making the law better. In the 2013-14 session, we’ve dealt with a bill to create a government-run database of prescription medication records and another bill to collect DNA from people who have been merely arrested but not convicted of a crime.

The former has been tied up in part due to privacy concerns- among Democrats and Republicans- over the bill’s loose standard for prosecutors to access the database. The latter should be dead after Public Source published findings last month that 30,000 arrestees in Pennsylvania in 2013 were never fingerprinted, leading one to reasonably wonder how police are going to add DNA collection to their duties.

And alarm bells went off throughout the capitol (figuratively) in April when the state Supreme Court ruled that police officers no longer need a search warrant issued by a court to search a stopped vehicle. While the court maintained the constitutionally-sound “probable cause” standard, it removed the neutral third party- the judge- to determine that the officer actually reached the standard. That will force Pennsylvanians who are unfairly searched to fight it after the fact. Numerous state legislators and staff approached me after that ruling to say, in so many words, “WTF?”

All is not lost, though. The ACLU of Pennsylvania has teamed up with legislators from both parties to stop or at least neutralize awful legislation that would undermine privacy over the last two legislative sessions. The ground is fertile to push back with initiatives that enhance privacy in Pennsylvania and that keep the government from expanding its reach into our business.

Unless you’ve found a way to live electronic-free (and you’re reading this blog so I assume you haven’t), you’re on the grid. You shouldn’t have to choose between modern conveniences and your right to be free from government snooping. State lawmakers need to hear that message, too.

Andy HooverAndy Hoover is the legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. That means he lobbies, even though his colleagues often ask him, “How can you stand it?” He goes onto the grid on Twitter, @freedomsfriend.

Meet Julie Zaebst, Project Manager of The Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project

Julie Zaebst

Julie Zaebst

Julie Zaebst joined the ACLU-PA in July 2014, bringing more than 10 years of experience as a program manager and advocate. Most recently, she directed the Policy Center at the Coalition Against Hunger, where she led the organization’s advocacy initiatives to protect and enhance the federal nutrition programs in Pennsylvania, including food stamps and school meals. Before getting started, we asked Julie some questions about her previous experience and what she’s looking forward to in her new role as Project Manager of the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project.

What most interested you about this position?

I always imagined that I would devote my career to women’s health and reproductive rights. These were the issues that first politicized me as a student, and I spent much of my time and energy as a student and young professional working on these issues in a volunteer capacity. But a different opportunity came my way. Instead, I had a chance to serve as an advocate for low-income people who are struggling with hunger and for the federal nutrition programs, like food stamps, that help them put healthy food on the table. This has been an incredible experience, and I’ve learned a lot about what it takes to be an effective advocate. I’m excited to have the opportunity to bring my skills and passion to the issue of reproductive rights at the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

Where were you before joining the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project and the ACLU of Pennsylvania?

Over the past 10 years, I’ve worn many different hats at the Coalition Against Hunger – volunteer coordinator, advocacy coordinator and interim executive director. Most recently, I managed the Coalition’s policy center, where I directed initiatives to protect and enhance the federal nutrition programs in Pennsylvania, including food stamps, school meals, and the child care food program.

Prior to that, I served as the Associate Director of the Civic Engagement Office at Bryn Mawr College, which facilitates service-learning and volunteer opportunities for undergraduates. I learned an enormous amount from the students, faculty and community partners about what it means to be an engaged citizen and how to foster that type of engagement in our communities.

How do you think your previous experiences will help you in this new role?

In my roles at the Coalition Against Hunger and at Bryn Mawr College, I had the chance to hone a diverse set of skills that I’ll be tapping into as the Duvall Project Manager: public education, constituent mobilization, coalition-building, and legislative and administrative advocacy. I love putting these different strategies and skills to work to effect policy change, and I’m thrilled to have the chance to do so in the area of reproductive rights in Pennsylvania.

What are you most excited about taking over the project?

I’m excited to carry forward the incredible work that the Duvall Project has been doing to ensure incarcerated women’s access to reproductive health services. This initiative raises critical civil liberties issues that sit at the intersection of prisoners’ rights and reproductive rights, and I see ACLU-PA as uniquely positioned to address these issues that otherwise might go unnoticed. Carol has laid a terrific groundwork for this initiative, both in terms of research and relationship-building, and the Duvall Project has already achieved some great successes in reforming jails’ policies about reproductive health care.

What are some future projects you foresee the CBD Project taking on?

Recently, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the ways that stigma impacts the issues that I care about and the public policy work that I do. For instance, I’ve worked closely with Witnesses to Hunger, a program at Drexel University that provides a space for mothers to share their personal experiences with hunger through photos and story-telling and that brings their perspectives to bear in policy debates about the nutrition programs. I’ve been humbled by these women’s willingness to share their experiences and impressed with the ways in which their personal stories can humanize and ground technical, often polarized public policy debates and influence their outcomes.

I was excited to hear that the ACLU is having a similar conversation about stigma around reproductive rights. I see great opportunity to address issues of stigma and center the voices and experiences of women and men who have had to grapple with difficult reproductive health decisions. By engaging in public education and organizing with the goal of addressing this stigma, I think we can begin to bring about the cultural shift necessary to ultimately affect public policy.

What do you think are the biggest obstacles to reproductive freedom?

It sometimes seems that the story of reproductive rights is one of death by a thousand cuts. The specific restrictions placed on women’s reproductive rights are often complex or obscure in nature, and considered in isolation they may seem insignificant to much of the general public. Yet together, this patchwork of laws and regulations makes access to safe and affordable abortions – and sometimes other critical reproductive health services – increasingly difficult for women across Pennsylvania, especially low-income women. One of the ongoing challenges for the reproductive rights movement will be to continue to educate supporters about the impact of these restrictions and to galvanize strong opposition to each and every effort to limit women’s reproductive freedoms. This is especially critical as more and more supporters – like myself – belong to the post-Roe generation and don’t have a personal, first-hand understanding of what it would mean to entirely lose the freedoms granted by that court decision.